Greater Bombay, 27th February 2024: In a significant ruling, the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Ashutosh Arvind Jamdade, a 32-year-old self-employed individual from Sangli, Maharashtra, who is accused of orchestrating a multi-crore land fraud. The decision was delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. S. D. Tawshikar on 23rd February 2024, following a detailed hearing of Criminal Bail Application No. 371 of 2024. The case, registered under Crime No. 247 of 2023 at Marine Drive Police Station, involves serious charges under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 171 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to cheating, forgery, and using forged documents as genuine.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around allegations that Ashutosh Jamdade, along with other co-accused, defrauded the complainant’s family by falsely promising to remove the “forest land” designation from a 14-acre, 20-guntha (5.87 hectares) plot in Gundale village, Palghar. The land, purchased by the complainant’s father in 2003, had limited ownership rights due to its classification as forest land, as indicated in the 7/12 extract (land record).
According to the prosecution, Jamdade and his associates claimed they could secure the necessary permissions from the Forest Department to remove the “forest land” tag. Over time, the complainant’s father allegedly transferred a total of Rs. 22,75,600 to Jamdade under the guise of government fees and other expenses. Despite receiving the funds, Jamdade failed to deliver on his promises, leading to immense stress for the complainant’s father, who reportedly died due to the tension caused by the fraudulent transaction. The FIR was registered on 25th November 2023, nearly two years after the alleged fraud took place.
Arguments Presented
Defense’s Plea:
Advocate Swapnil S. Patankar, representing Jamdade, argued that the allegations pertained to transactions between October 2020 and September 2021, and the delay in filing the FIR raised questions about the credibility of the case. He contended that Jamdade had only received Rs. 50,000 from the complainant’s father, which was part of a legitimate transaction. Patankar also highlighted that Jamdade had no role in preparing forged challans and accused the police of falsely implicating him in two separate FIRs on the same day.
The defense further emphasized Jamdade’s poor health, citing a recent hospitalization due to a serious heart condition. Patankar argued that Jamdade’s elderly mother was dependent on him, and there were no other earning members in the family. He also pointed out that the alleged offence was triable by a magistrate and that the investigation was practically complete, making further incarceration unnecessary.
Prosecution’s Opposition:
Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) Ajit Chavan strongly opposed the bail application, describing Jamdade as a “habitual defrauder” who posed as a liaison agent with connections to government officials. Chavan argued that Jamdade had played a lead role in the fraud by luring the complainant’s family with false promises and fabricating documents, including forged challans, to deceive them.
The prosecution revealed that despite claiming to be a liaison agent, Jamdade had never submitted any proposals to the Forest Department or other government offices regarding the land. Chavan also highlighted that substantial evidence, including bank transaction records, had already been collected, and the investigation was still ongoing. He expressed concerns that releasing Jamdade on bail could hamper the investigation and allow him to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Court’s Observations and Decision
After reviewing the FIR, investigation papers, and arguments from both sides, the court made the following key observations:
- Active Involvement in Fraud: The court found prima facie evidence of Jamdade’s active involvement in deceiving the complainant’s family and extracting a significant amount of money under false pretenses.
- Ongoing Investigation: The investigation was still in progress, and the charge sheet had not yet been filed. The court noted that releasing Jamdade at this stage could hinder the investigation.
- Health Concerns: While Jamdade’s health issues were acknowledged, the court stated that the jail authorities were obligated to provide necessary medical care, and this could not be grounds for granting bail.
- Multiple FIRs: The court took note of another FIR registered against Jamdade on the same day, involving similar allegations of cheating, which further weighed against granting bail.
Court’s Ruling
The court rejected the bail application, stating that the seriousness of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, and the potential risk of evidence tampering justified Jamdade’s continued custody. The court also dismissed the defense’s reliance on previous judgments, noting that the cited cases were based on different factual circumstances and were not applicable to the present matter.
Conclusion
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that serious allegations of fraud and forgery are thoroughly investigated without interference. While the defense highlighted Jamdade’s health and family circumstances, the court prioritized the integrity of the investigation and the gravity of the charges.
Next Steps:
Jamdade will remain in judicial custody as the investigation continues. The prosecution is expected to file the charge sheet soon, after which the trial will proceed. The case serves as a reminder of the legal consequences of fraudulent activities and the importance of due process in addressing such crimes.
Case Details:
- Bail Application No.: 371 of 2024
- CNR No.: MHCC020025692024
- Judge: Dr. S. D. Tawshikar, Additional Sessions Judge, Court Room No. 10, Greater Bombay.
- Date of Order: 23rd February 2024.
This decision highlights the challenges of balancing individual rights with the need to uphold justice in complex fraud cases, particularly when significant financial losses and emotional distress are involved.